“Remove justice, and what are kingdoms, but gangs of criminals on a large scale.” – Saint Augustine
Introduction
The concept of justice has been at the forefront of political philosophy for centuries, dating back to the time of Plato. Derived from the Latin word ‘justicia,’ meaning joining or fitting, justice plays a pivotal role in shaping societies and governing the behavior of individuals within them. John Rawls, a prominent figure in modern political philosophy, asserts that “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions as truth is of the system of thoughts.”
Further, in this article, we delve into the multifaceted landscape of justice, exploring the ideas of philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, John Rawls, and Robert Nozick, and examining the communitarian and feminist perspectives.
Table of Contents
Conceptualizing Justice
Plato’s ‘Theory of Justice,’ as outlined in his work ‘The Republic,’ centers on the principle of harmony within the three classes of society. For Plato, justice embodies the idea of one person having one duty, belonging to one class, and performing one kind of work.
Aristotle, in his ‘Nicomachean Ethics,’ distinguishes between three forms of justice: distributive, corrective, and reciprocal. He emphasizes the importance of incorporating principles of equality, proportionality, and equilibrium, defining justice as Proportionate Equality.
Michael J. Sandel, in his book “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” presents three distinct approaches to justice: utilitarianism, libertarianism, and idealism. The utilitarian approach focuses on maximizing utility or welfare as the essence of justice, while the libertarian approach equates justice with freedom of choice. The idealistic approach posits that justice is about cultivating virtue and reasoning.
Distributive Justice of Rawls
John Rawls‘ ‘A Theory of Justice,’ published in 1971, is a seminal work in contemporary political theory. Rawls’s theory is rooted in procedural justice, emphasizing the meticulous adherence to rules. He views justice as a deontological concept, where rights take precedence over the pursuit of the good, which is circumscribed by the boundaries of justice.
According to Rawls, justice is synonymous with fairness, extending fairness to both the advantaged and disadvantaged members of society. His primary focus is on the justness of the social structure rather than individual justice. Rawls formulates two principles of justice: the Equality Principle, asserting that each person should have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberties for others, and the Difference Principle, which stipulates that social and economic inequalities should benefit the least advantaged and be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Rawls prioritizes these principles in a specific order, ensuring that individual liberty is not compromised for the liberty of others. He considers talent, merit, and need in the distribution of justice, ensuring fairness for both the most and least advantaged members of society. Importantly, Rawls rejects the notion that liberty and equality are antithetical, viewing them as complementary elements of a just society.
Justice as Entitlement: Robert Nozick (Entitlement Theory)
Robert Nozick’s theory of justice is grounded in John Locke’s theory of property. Similar to Locke, Nozick justifies the concept of a ‘Night watchman State’ and advocates for a libertarian form of justice. He opposes the welfare state and labels progressive taxation as a form of bonded labor, asserting that the state’s powers should be limited to the protection of property rights.
Nozick’s ‘Anarchy, State and Utopia’ introduces the three principles of entitlement: the Principle of Just Acquisition, which asserts that anything acquired through one’s own effort belongs to the individual; the Principle of Just Transfer, allowing individuals to transfer their holdings voluntarily; and the Principle of Rectification, stating that no one is entitled to holdings except through the repeated application of the first two principles. Redistribution is only warranted when the initial distribution is unjust.
Communitarian Perspective of Justice: Michael Walzer & Michael Sandel
Michael Walzer, in his book ‘Spheres of Justice,’ presents an inclusive theory of justice. He contends that different goods should be distributed differently based on the social meanings attributed by members of society. Walzer’s principles of justice are pluralistic, with varying distributions of goods justified by different procedures and agents. He emphasizes the role of communities in shaping individuals’ understanding of justice and their subscription to specific notions of fairness. Each sphere of justice is considered separate and autonomous, as the distribution of goods varies from one sphere to another and from one community to another.
Michael Sandel, in ‘Liberalism and the Limits of Justice,’ critiques Rawls’ theory of justice. He challenges the abstract nature of Rawls’ justice and advocates for a more communitarian perspective, asserting that justice is deeply intertwined with the values and beliefs of the community.
Feminist Conception of Justice (Susan Moller Okin, Carole Gilligan, and Carole Pateman)
Susan Moller Okin, a trailblazing feminist philosopher, made a significant contribution to the field of justice by incorporating the question of gender. In her book ‘Justice, Gender and the Family,’ she argued that traditional norms, socialization, and fixed gender roles perpetuate inequality in terms of status and rights. Okin took a normative stance on justice and viewed the gendered family structure as the root cause of gender inequality, which she considered a form of injustice. As a reformist, she aimed to address the private sources of inequality and unfairness, with a focus on the public/private divide as a major source of injustice. Okin emphasized that the basic unit of justice should extend to the family, highlighting the importance of justice and equality within familial relationships.
Carole Pateman, in her book ‘The Sexual Contract,’ challenged the traditional liberal idea of the social contract. She criticized liberals for neglecting the role of women as negotiators in the social contract, asserting that women had been taken for granted and their choices equated with those of the male heads of the family. Pateman’s work shed light on fundamental political issues related to freedom and subordination, particularly with regard to women’s rights and agency.
Carole Gilligan, in her book ‘In a Different Voice,’ introduced the concepts of care-based morality and justice-based morality. She argued that an ethics of care should take precedence over liberty, emphasizing the importance of caring relationships and empathy in the pursuit of justice. Gilligan’s work challenged traditional conceptions of justice, highlighting the need for a more inclusive and empathetic approach.
Concept of Global Justice
Global Justice is a universal principle aiming to establish fairness and equity among all human beings, irrespective of geographical, political, or social boundaries. Unlike justice limited to individual nations, global justice focuses on humanity as a collective, addressing systemic inequalities and moral obligations to rectify global disparities.
Thomas Pogge’s Theory of Global Justice
Thomas Pogge’s theory of global justice is normative, as it raises moral questions about inequality and duty. His primary concern is the merciless consequences of poverty, particularly among marginalized groups, such as women and people of color. Pogge rejects the rationalization of development economists who attribute poverty to domestic factors like bad governance and sexist culture. Instead, he attributes the persistence of poverty and social injustice to the global order promoted by leaders from affluent countries and supported by leaders of poor countries.
Pogge’s book ‘World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms’ places the responsibility for achieving global justice in the hands of advantaged citizens in affluent countries. He proposes a solution involving the reform of global institutional order, where a percentage of the Global Resource Dividend (GRD) is allocated to eradicate poverty and social injustice
Approaches to Global Justice
Global justice is analyzed through three distinct approaches:
- Cosmopolitan Approach:
- Influenced by Immanuel Kant, this approach prioritizes individual rights over state sovereignty.
- Advocates for global institutions to protect human dignity and justice universally.
- Communitarian Approach:
- Rooted in G.W.F. Hegel’s philosophy, this approach emphasizes the state’s role in nurturing individual growth and ensuring collective welfare.
- Realist Approach:
Global Justice vs. International Justice
- International Justice:
Centers on the state as a unit and discusses justice in inter-state relationships. - Global Justice:
Focuses on individuals and emphasizes the moral obligation of the world’s rich to support the world’s poor.
Reasons for Global Justice
The demand for global justice arises from multiple challenges, including:
- Globalization and Economic Inequality:
Widening economic disparities necessitate a fair redistribution of resources. - Rise of Human Rights Movements:
Universal recognition of human rights highlights the need to address global injustices. - Immigration Issues:
The plight of migrants underscores the necessity for a globally just framework. - Health and Gender Inequalities:
Persistent inequities in healthcare access and gender rights demand systemic reforms.
Human Rights and Global Justice
Human rights form the cornerstone of global justice, often referred to as universal rights because they apply to all individuals without exception.
- Milestone Declaration:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 established these principles universally. - Prominent Organization:
Amnesty International, founded in 1961, is a key advocate for human rights globally.
Global Commons and Their Connection to Global Justice
Global Commons refer to areas not under the jurisdiction of any single nation but essential for humanity’s collective well-being. Mainly, there four Global Commons:
- Outer space
- The high seas/The deep ocean floor
- Antarctica
- The Atmosphere
Global justice demands equitable governance of these commons, ensuring their sustainable use for all.
Role of International Law in Global Justice
International law plays a crucial role in regulating relationships between states and promoting justice globally.
- Historical Foundations:
The writings of Hugo Grotius, particularly his book On the Law of War and Peace (1625), laid the groundwork for modern international law. - Objective:
Govern interactions among states and protect international actors while aligning with principles of global justice.
Although Jean-Jacques Rousseau did not develop a specific theory of global justice, his ideas on equality and universal morality align with its principles. Similarly, thinkers like Immanuel Kant and Hugo Grotius contributed indirectly to the broader understanding of global fairness.
Global justice is vital for addressing systemic inequalities, fostering cooperation, and promoting sustainable development. By holding affluent societies accountable for their role in perpetuating global disparities, it aims to create a more just and equitable world. Pogge’s theory highlights the urgency of moral and institutional reforms to address global injustices. In doing so, it urges humanity to prioritize the well-being of individuals over state-centric goals and embrace a universal perspective of justice. Through equitable resource distribution, protection of human rights, and shared responsibility for global commons, global justice remains an enduring vision for a fair and interconnected world.
Social Liberals (Amartya Sen’s Theory of Justice)
Amartya Sen, in his book ‘The Idea of Justice,’ criticizes John Rawls’ theory of justice on several grounds. He argues that striving for a universally acceptable ultimate idea of justice is fruitless, and justice is not a product of abstract procedures but a result of social choices made by actual people. Sen introduces the concept of social choice, which is based on real people making rational choices in practical situations.
Sen’s theory, which he terms a “comparative theory of justice,” emphasizes making society as just as possible within the given circumstances, focusing on actual outcomes rather than abstract principles. He advocates a realization-focused approach, inspired by Buddha’s quest to eliminate human suffering. For Sen, policy should aim to eliminate human suffering, reflecting the concept of ‘Nyaya’ over ‘Niti,’ where ‘Nyaya’ represents a substantive and realization-focused approach, while ‘Niti’ focuses on procedures.
Quotes on Justice
- “To each according to his capacity, to each according to his need.” – Saint Simon
- “Justice is the reconciler and the synthesis of political values; it is their union in an adjusted and integrated whole.” – Barker
- “Justice consists of a system of understanding and procedures through which each is accorded what is agreed upon as fair.” – Charles Merriam
Some Important Works on Justice
- “Political Theory and International Relations” by Charles Beitz
- “Humanity and Justice in Global Perspective” and “Justice as Reciprocity” by Brian Barry
- “The Liberal Theory of Justice” by Brian Berry
- “Justice” by Tom Campbell
- “International Distributive Justice” (article) by Simon Caney
- “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” by Michael Sandel
Conclusion
The concept of justice remains a mirage, sought after by many, yet elusive to most. It is a fundamental principle for the proper functioning of social and political institutions worldwide. As the quote by Francis Bacon aptly suggests, justice is not just a desirable quality; it is a necessity for the maintenance and advancement of societies and the world at large. The perspectives of feminist philosophers, global justice theorists, and social liberals provide a rich tapestry of ideas that contribute to the ongoing discourse on justice in the contemporary world.
Read More:
[…] III. Imperative of Justice […]